Re: [ckrm-tech] RFC: Memory Controller

[Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>]

[snip]

> A quick code review showed that most of the accounting is the
> same.
> 
> I see that most of the mmap accounting code, it seems to do
> the equivalent of security_vm_enough_memory() when VM_ACCOUNT
> is set. May be we could merge the accounting code to handle
> even containers.
> 
> I looked at
> 
> do_mmap_pgoff
> acct_stack_growth
> __do_brk (
> do_mremap

I'm sure this is possible. I'll take this into account
in the next patch series. Thank you.

>> [snip]
>>
>>> Please see the patching of Rohit's memory controller for user
>>> level patching. It seems much simpler.
>> Could you send me an URL where to get the patch from, please.
>> Or the patch itself directly to me. Thank you.
> 
> Please see http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/19/283

Thanks. I'll review it in a couple of days and comment.

[snip]

> I think the interface should depend on the controllers and not
> the other way around. I fear that the infrastructure discussion might
> hold us back and no fruitful work will happen on the controllers.
> Once we add and agree on the controller, we can then look at the
> interface requirements (like persistence if kernel memory is being
> tracked, etc). What do you think?

I do agree with you. But we have to make an agreement with
Paul in this also...